Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Jul 30, 2007 2:04pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: non-dead Disgusting Sports News

actually, cheney was the result of a lab experiment gone terribly awry...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ssag Date: Jul 30, 2007 2:11pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: non-dead Disgusting Sports News

Yeah right, they forgot a chromosome and installed Herman Goebbels's blood in him.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Jul 30, 2007 2:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: non-dead Disgusting Sports News

Huh. And here I was thinking this topic header had something to do w/the news that the Celtics just acquired Kevin Garnett from the T-Wolves in exchange for Al Jefferson, Sebastian Telfair, Theo Ratliff (and his fat contract), gerald Green, a future draft pick, and Danny Ainge's next-born child (true breaking news, btw)...

As for Vick, if he is guilty of this dog fighting charge, i agree--slather him in BBQ sauce and let some starving Rotweillers have their way. He does, however, deserve his day in court first, just as anyone does in America.

The accusation can't be the conviction.

If he is guilty, though--and the evidence so far looks bad against him--what i said just above.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ducats Date: Jul 30, 2007 2:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: non-dead Disgusting Sports News

I'm surprised at this board's complete concurrence with just one more BOLD example of commercial hypocrisy - the fat man would be disappointed. Did the world not know about dog fighting until last week? And I'm sure holier than thou Arthur Blank never stocked his HD shelves with product produced by child slave labor either. He wants his Falcons to be a symbol in their community - give me a break.
And this kind of shit should'nt be on this board.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ssag Date: Jul 30, 2007 3:40pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: non-dead Disgusting Sports News

Say what? Could you explain your thoughts better.

Hypocrisy? I love good debates and will listen to your side so if you have the time would you care in expound on your meaning???

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ducats Date: Jul 30, 2007 5:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: non-dead Disgusting Sports News

Nike,Reebok,Upperdeck (sponsors-inc the Falcons-that dropped him) don't care about the dog-fighting. You can figure out the rest of the argument. I'm not saying he should not be prosecuted.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ssag Date: Jul 30, 2007 7:19pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: non-dead Disgusting Sports News

No, actually I was wondering if you would substantiate your claim this is hypocritical for us to take a shot at Vick and not leave it to the ambiguous understanding.

I know where you are trying to drive to but I disagree. It's easy to throw comparisons around and call it good but is this what you want to compare Federal RICO charges and premeditated murder of a defenseless animal to?

If you were toAsk me I would say these two situation are exclusive of each other. One is business ethics and the other is about personal responsibility. Similar yes, comparable no!

But I will let you explain to me what you mean first before I go into a diatribe as to why Vick should be under scrutiny to utmost degree even before being convicted.

This post was modified by Ssag on 2007-07-31 02:19:00

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ducats Date: Jul 31, 2007 6:09am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: non-dead Disgusting Sports News

if the old colonol KFC was one of his sponsors and the "compound" was for cock fights would they have dropped him?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Jul 31, 2007 6:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: non-dead Disgusting Sports News

That argument makes no sense.

Nike, Reebok, Upperdeck etc., are not in the business of dog fighting or anything related to dogs. They are dropping Vick not--as you correctly point out--because they care so much about cruelty to animals, but b/c they do not want the face of their businesses promoted by and associated with someone who would engage in such a viciously cruel and horrible act BECAUSE they would lose money on people who would not buy their product because of that association.

Vick is therefore paying for his --yes, alleged--actions for both cynical reasons and good reasons: 1) cynical, b/c the companies care about their bottom line, and might drop him as well for less moral reasons, i.e., if he admitted he was gay, and 2) good, because people SHOULD refuse to purchase a product endorsed and promoted by someone who does something as evil and sickening as dog fighting, b/c why should that spokesman get rich off the public's dime when the public abhors what they choose to do with thei free time and gobs of money?

I fail to see what the problem in attacking Vick is here. I in fact defended his right to a fair trial, and support waiting until it's determined whether he did this before denying him future play in the NFL (and he should be barred for life if he's guilt, and jailed for what he did).

Whether companies like Nike exploit workers in Indonesia by paying them 30 cents a day to make shoes is besides the point....(Nike does do this,and as a result, I refuse to buy their shoes; that and the fact that they're overrated and basically suck for someone like myself who has extra wide feet; they never fit me well)...but if you think we're attacking Vick while turning a blind eye to other corporate abuses around the world you're wrong...and two wrongs don't make a right, anyway...why give Vick a "pass"--sorry--just b/c other abuses also go on?

If he was running a dog fighting ring and killing animals that lose by drowning, shocking, or shooting them in the head, he should be treated like the criminal he is for doing so--IF he did it.

Let a jury decide.